Related Stories

Overturning two lower-court decisions, the Texas Supreme Court on Friday gave state officials the go-ahead to continue collecting a special $5-per-customer tax on strip clubs.

The so-called “pole tax,” collected upon entrance to any club that features scantily clad dancers and alcohol consumption, was ruled unconstitutional by a state district judge in Austin and the 3rd Court of Appeals.

The law was passed by the Texas Legislature in 2007, and so far about $15 million has been collected, according to the state comptroller's office. The money has not been disbursed because of the earlier court rulings.

The ruling comes more than a year after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments at St. Mary's University School of Law.

Local clubs are paying very close attention and are now trying to figure out their next step, attorney James Deegear said.

“We lost a major battle but not the war, yet,” he said.

Another case was waiting to be filed that focuses on equal protection, he said. They were waiting to see if the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the Texas Entertainment Association before filing anything additional.

The bill's author, Ellen Cohen, wrote the law so that the first $25 million in proceeds from the tax would go to programs that help victims of sexual assault.

After that, the funds are earmarked for health care programs for uninsured people.

She praised the court's decision.

“I'm thrilled by it,” said Cohen, a two-term state representative who lost her re-election bid in the Republican landslide of 2010. “The whole idea was to find a way that would not be onerous and would fund resources for victims of sexual assault and spread the word about their needs.”

The Texas Entertainment Association, comprising many of the state's adult cabarets, brought the lawsuit on grounds that such a fee infringed on First Amendment protections.

Attorney Stewart Whitehead, who represents the organization, said he was disappointed the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts.

“We think they picked the wrong test to evaluate this law,” Whitehead said, arguing the justices focused on previous zoning cases instead of tax cases. “We're assessing our options as to whether to take this option to the U.S. Supreme Court or to go back to Texas state district court and address other claims that were not addressed in this opinion.”

The association also had claimed the strip-club law violated the Texas Constitution because the fee amounted to an occupational tax, a quarter of which is dedicated to education funding.

The state Supreme Court, however, focused only on whether the fee amounted to an illegal infringement on freedom of expression.

In its opinion, the court said the fee was too small to be burdensome or amount to significant infringement, and that the state has a right to be concerned with the “secondary effects” of adult businesses.

“The fee in this case is clearly directed, not at (freedom of) expression in nude dancing, but at the secondary effects of nude dancing when alcohol is being consumed,” the ruling stated. “An adult entertainment business can avoid the fee altogether simply by not allowing alcohol to be consumed.”